Sumerian Hymns
from Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum
: Frederick Augustus Vanderburgh
Note
The so-called “Sumerian Question” as to the genuine linguistic character
of the ancient Non-Semitic Babylonian texts has agitated the
Assyriological world for more than twenty years. The new Sumerian matter
from the monuments which is constantly coming to hand demands, in the
interest of all those who can look upon this discussion with impartial
eyes, a most rigid and unprejudiced examination. Dr. Vanderburgh in the
following monograph has adhered to the views expounded in my “Materials
for a Sumerian Lexicon” (J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905-1907),
that the so-called Sumerian was originally a Non-Semitic agglutinative
language which, in the course of many centuries of Semitic influences,
became so incrusted with Semiticisms, most of them the result of a very
gradual development of the earlier foreign sacred speech of the priests,
that it is really not surprising to find the theory that Sumerian was
merely a Semitic cryptography set forth and vigorously upheld by so
eminent a scholar as Professor Halevy (MSL., pp. VIII, IX).
The study of the more ancient Non-Semitic texts, more particularly of
the Sumerian unilingual hymns, cannot fail to shed additional light on
the nature of this peculiar idiom, besides furnishing a valuable
addition to the study of the Babylonian religious system.
The texts of the hymns in Vol. XV. of the Brit. Mus. Cun. Texts are not
always in good condition and present many difficulties, a solution of
some of which, it is hoped, has been suggested in this work with at
least approximate correctness.
John Dyneley Prince
Columbia University
October 1st, 1907
To the
Rev. Edward Judson, D. D.,
in recognition of his friendship to the author
and of his interest in Oriental studies
Preface
Vol. XV. of the “Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum, printed by order of the Trustees”, was published in 1902. Plates
7-30 of this valuable volume contain hymns addressed to Bel, Nergal,
Adad, Sin, Tammuz, Bau and Ningirgilu. Of these, besides the
translations given in the present work, the following have been
translated and commented on; viz., J. Dyneley Prince, Jour. Amer. Or.
Soc., xxviii, pp. 168-182, a hymn to Nergal (Pl. 14); and a hymn to Sin
(also rendered and explained in this thesis) by E. Guthrie Perry, in
_Hymnen und Gebete an Sin_ (Pl. 17). In press at present are also
translations by J. D. Prince, a hymn to Bau, Vol. XV. Pl. 22 in the
Harper Memorial Volume (Chicago); and, by the same author, a hymn to
Ningirgilu, Vol. XV. Pl. 23, in the Paul Haupt Collection to appear in
1908.
All these hymns in Plates 7-30 stand by themselves as distinct from
anything hitherto published. They are unilingual, a fact indicating that
they are very ancient and furthermore adding materially to the
difficulty of their translation. This Thesis ventures a transliteration,
translation and commentary of four of the hymns which are peculiarly
difficult owing to their unilingual Non-Semitic character. Of the
history of the tablets in question, which are all in the Old Babylonian
character, we have no information. They must tell their own story.
The writer of this Thesis wishes to acknowledge with much appreciation
the aid given him by Dr. John Dyneley Prince, Professor of Semitic
Languages in Columbia University, in the preparation of this work.
New York, Oct. 1st, 1907
F. A. Vanderburgh
List of Abbreviations
AL: Assyrische Lesestucke, von Friedrich Delitzsch. Vierte
durchaus neu bearbeitete Auflage.
ASK: Akkadische and Sumerische Keilschrifttexte, von Paul Haupt.
BN: Das Babylonische Nimrodepos, von Paul Haupt.
Br: A Classified List of Cuneiform Ideograms, Compiled by Rudolph
E. Brunnow.
CDAL.: A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, by William
Muss-Arnolt.
CḤ: The Code of Ḥammurabi, King of Babylon, by Robert Francis
Harper.
Cler: Collection de Clercq. Catalogue. Antiquites Assyriennes.
CT: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum.
Dec: Decouvertes en Chaldee, par Ernest de Sarzec.
EBH: Early Babylonian History, by Hugo Radau.
EBL: Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th Century, by H. V.
Hilprecht.
HBA: A History of Babylonia and Assyria, by R. W. Rogers.
HW: Assyrisches Handworterbuch, von Friedrich Delitzsch.
IG: The Great Cylinder Inscriptions A and B of Gudea, by Ira
Maurice Price.
JA: Journal Asiatique.
JRAS: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
MSL: Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon, by John Dyneley Prince.
N: Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, by
John Punnett Peters.
OBI: Old Babylonian Inscriptions, chiefly from Nippur. By H. V.
Hilprecht.
OBTR: Old Babylonian Temple Records, by Robert Julius Lau.
R: Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, prepared by Sir Henry
Rawlinson.
RAAO: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archeologie Orientale.
RBA: Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, von Morris Jastrow,
Jr.
RSA: Recueil de Signes Archaiques de l’Ecriture Cuneiforme, par V.
Scheil.
SSD: Les Signes Sumeriens derives, par Paul Toscanne.
SSO: A Sketch of Semitic Origins, by George Aaron Barton.
SVA: Die Sumerischen Verbal-Afformative nach den altesten
Keilinschriften, von Vincent Brummer.
TC: Tableau Compare des Ecritures Babylonienne et Assyrienne
Archaiques et Modernes, par A. Amiaud et L. Mechineau.
TEA: Der Tontafelfund von El Amarna, herausgegeben von Hugo
Winckler.
TR: Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana, by Wm. K.
Loftus.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Chapter I 21
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Bel
Chapter II 42
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Sin
Chapter III 55
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Adad
Chapter IV 70
Transliteration, Translation and Commentary, Hymn to Tammuz
Glossary 81
Introduction
The gods honored in the hymns treated in the following Thesis are Bel,
Sin (Nannar), Adad (Ramman) and Tammuz, all deities of the old
Babylonian pantheon, representing different phases of personality and
force, conceived of as incorporated in nature and as affecting the
destinies of men. These gods are severally designated in the hymns as
follows:
in Tablet 13963, Rev. 1, “O Bel of the mountains;”
in Tablet 13930, Obv. 2, “O father Nannar;”
in Tablet 29631, Obv. 10, “O Ramman, king of heaven”; and
in Tablet 29628, Obv. 3, “The lord Tammuz” (CT. XV, 10, 15, 16, 17 and
19).
The attributes and deeds belonging to these divinities are adduced from
a wide range of literature, beginning with the royal inscriptions of the
pre-dynastic periods and ending with the inscriptions of the monarchs of
the later Babylonian empire. In fact, the building inscriptions of the
Babylonians, the war inscriptions of the Assyrians, the legendary
literature, the incantations, as well as the religious collections,
particularly the hymns, afford us many descriptions, of greater or less
length, of all the Babylonian gods.
To aid the student in understanding better the character of the four
gods whose hymns have been translated in the following Thesis, I here
give a brief descriptive sketch of each of the deities whose praises
were sung in the documents which I have chosen to render.
1. _Bel_
Bel was the most ancient of all Babylonian gods and was a popular deity
through the historic rise and fall of several Babylonian states, when no
other god received prominent recognition. When En-šag-kušanna, lord of
Kengi, subdued the city of Kiš in the north of Babylonia, he brought the
spoil of his victory to Bel. “To Bel (_En-lil_), king of the lands,
En-šag-kušanna, lord of Kengi, the spoil of Kiš, wicked of heart, he
presented.”[1] Urukagina, king of Lagaš, built a temple to Ningirsu, the
god of Girsu, but he, in honoring Ningirsu as the hero of Bel, was
really honoring Bel. “For Ningirsu, the hero of Bel, Urukagina, king of
Širpurla, his house he built.”[2] Eannatum, who was patesi of Lagaš and
made himself king of Kiš, calls himself the chosen of Bel, as follows:
“Eannatum, patesi of Širpurla, chosen of Bel.”[3] Entemena, who is
called in the Vase of Silver, “son of Enanatum”,[4] and who probably was
the nephew of Eannatum, introduces his fine Cone Inscription with these
words: “Bel, king of the lands, father of the gods.”[5] He also claims
in the same inscription to derive the right to reign from Bel:
“Entemena, patesi of Širpurla, to whom a sceptre is given by Bel.”[6]
Entemena’s Cone also gives us information about Mesilim. It speaks of
Mesilim as “king of Kiš.”[7] In describing the victory of Mesilim over
the Gišbanites, a people located apparently not very far from Kiš,
Entemena tells us that the victory was effected by the command of Bel.
“Upon the command of Bel a scourge he (Mesilim) brought over them (the
Gišbanites); the dead in a field of the land he buried.”[8] For map
showing supposed location of Gišban, see SSO. p. 158. Lugalzaggisi, a
usurper from the north, making himself master of the world in all
directions and setting up a throne at Erech, in his inscription of 132
lines, freely recognizes the favor of Bel. “Bel, king of the lands, to
Lugalzaggisi, king of Erech, the kingship of the world did give.”[9] In
this period preceding Sargon I., Šamaš seems to have a distinct place in
the religious world, but he does not receive the attention that Bel
receives. He is particularly mentioned in one inscription; viz., in the
_Stele des Vautours_, where he is spoken of as “Šamaš, the king who
dispenses splendour.”[10]
The date of these early Babylonian rulers, of course, is, as yet, not
accurately determined. The relative age of each is made out chiefly from
palaeographic evidences (see EBH. p. 8, for example), supplemented with
the attempt at fitting into one harmonious whole the events which the
inscriptions of these rulers divulge. Then the whole schedule is crowded
backward or forward or internally changed from time to time as new
evidence is gathered for or against the testimony of Nabonidus (555-538
B. C.) who, when he discovered the tablet of Naram-Sin, declared that he
was gazing on that which no eyes had beheld for thirty-two hundred
years. Nabonidus says: “I dug to a depth of eighteen cubits, and the
foundation of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, which for thirty-two hundred
years no king that had preceded me had discovered, Šamaš, the great Lord
of E-barra, permitted me, even me, to behold.”[11] On the supposed
relation of these kings to Naram-Sin, the rulers En-šag-kušanna, a king
of the south, Urukagina, of Lagaš, and Mesilim, a king ruling at Kiš,
are placed along about the date of 4500 B. C., while Eannatum, Enannatum
and Entemena, successive rulers at Lagaš, are placed near the date of
4200 B. C. Lugalzaggisi of Erech is placed at 4000 B. C. It may be
stated here that the date of Sargon I. as 3800 B. C. is obtained by
adding to 3200 the date of the reign of Nabonidus as 550 years B. C. and
also the length of the reign of Sargon I. as 50 years.
The seat of Bel’s cult was Nippur, a city lying between the Euphrates
and Tigris, a little below Babylon, and located, as it were, in the
midway favorable to receiving homage from kings of either the north or
the south of Babylonia. We find it mentioned as early as the time of
Entemena, who in one of his inscriptions, in speaking of something
presented to Bel, says: “To Bel of Nippur by Entemena it was
presented”.[12] In the bilingual legend of the Creation, Nippur seems to
be regarded as a very old city. It is placed at the head of the list of
three that are mentioned as ancient cities of Babylonia. “Nippur was not
made; E-kur was not built. Erech was not made; E-anna was not built. The
abyss was not made; Eridu was not built.”[13] Nippur evidently is older
than the worship of Bel and the conception of Bel is older than the
first king of whom we have mention; viz., En-šag-kušanna, who is placed
at 4500 B. C.
At Nippur was located Bel’s great temple which was commonly called
E-kur, house of the mountain, a name particularly descriptive of the
shrine of Bel resting on the top of the mountain-like _ziggurrat_.
Sargon I. calls himself the builder of Bel’s temple at Nippur, and
Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, also calls himself the builder of Bel’s
temple. Sargon’s language, which we take from a door-socket found at
Nippur, is: “Šargani-šar-ali, son of Itti-Bel, the mighty king of Agade,
builder of E-kur, temple of Bel in Nippur”.[14] The language of
Naram-Sin from a brick stamp found at Nippur is: “Naram-Sin, builder of
the temple of Bel”.[15] Neither Sargon nor his son meant that he was the
original builder of E-kur. They were simply repairers of the temple,
like many other kings. Many kings down to the last king of the last
empire took much pride in rebuilding temples. There must have been a
temple at Nippur when En-šag-kušanna presented the spoil of Kiš to Bel.
Excavations at Nippur show that, as there are great deposits of debris
above the temple pavements made by Sargon and his son, so beneath these
pavements there is a further great layer of debris, proving that the
founding of E-kur must reach far back into the darkness of pre-historic
antiquity. Sargon’s bricks were the first to bear a stamp which we may
consider to imply a date, but they were not the first bricks laid.
The _ziggurrat_ which Ur-Gur, an early king of Ur, built is the first of
which we have definite knowledge. We know something of the pavement that
Sargon I. and Naram-Sin built, but of the character of the buildings
that might have rested on this pavement we have no information. Ur-Gur
leveled the ground and built a new platform, 8 feet high and 100 by 170
feet in area with a _ziggurrat_ consisting of three stages. Some of the
facings of his structure were made of burnt brick, bearing the
inscription of Ur-Gur (see N. II, 124). The greatest temple Nippur ever
had was built by an Assyrian king; viz., Ašurbanipal. The structure
covered a larger surface than any before it. The walls, instead of being
plain, were ornamented with square half columns. The lower terrace was
faced with baked brick, stamped with an inscription in which the
_ziggurrat_ is dedicated to Bel, the lord of the lands, by Ašurbanipal,
the mighty king, the king of the four quarters of the earth, the builder
of E-kur (see N. II, 126).
E-kur, the temple of Bel at Nippur, as restored on the basis of the
discoveries of the University of Pennsylvania Exploration Fund, consists
of two courts, an outer and an inner court. Within the inner court
stands the _ziggurrat_, rising to a tower of three or four stages which
the most devout pilgrims might perhaps ascend. At the top is an enclosed
shrine in which is a statue of Bel. Here Bel and his consort, Belit, for
Babylonian gods maintain family relations like human beings, are
supposed to dwell. In figurines Bel appears as an old man, dressed in
royal robes, generally carrying a thunder-bolt in his hand (see N. II,
128). By the side of the _ziggurrat_ stands a temple for the use of the
priests. We may assume on the whole, no doubt, that the assembly of
pilgrims was confined chiefly to the outer court (see EBL. 470).
Bel was at first a local deity, but as the circumference of the
political territory of which Nippur was the religious centre was
enlarged, so Bel’s cult was extended. Other cities included in the same
political domain with Nippur, recognized Bel as lord. Bel was a sort of
war god. Kings rivaled one another in courting his favor. The victorious
king attributed his success to Bel and brought the spoil to Bel. The
king of the south, whether of Lagaš, Erech or Ur, and the king of the
north, whether of Kiš or Agade, always went to Nippur to celebrate his
victory. In this way Bel’s lordship came to be recognized as extending
over all Babylonia and finally over Assyria. Ḥammurabi, king at Babylon,
2300 B. C., recognized “Bel as lord of heaven and earth, who determines
the destiny of the land”,[16] and Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1100 B. C.),
the first great Assyrian conqueror, called Bel “the father of the gods
and Bel of the lands”,[17] and speaks of himself as “appointed to
dominion over the country of Bel”.[18]
The Semitic appropriation of En-lil involved some transformation in the
conception of Bel. Not to refer to Palestine, there were three Bels; the
Sumerian Bel, the Semitic Bel and the new Bel or Marduk, who, however,
was really a different god. The Babylonian Bel, either in the mind of
the Sumerian, of the Babylonian or of the Assyrian, always had his seat
at Nippur.
Under Semitic influence Bel became lord of the world. He was one in the
hierarchy of three who ruled the universe; viz., Anu, the lord of the
heavens, Bel, the lord of the earth, and Ea, the lord of the deep. The
Sumerian name, En-lil, made Bel the “lord of fulness”. The Semitic name
Bel emphasized the fact of his lordship, and the name of his temple,
E-kur, “house of the mountain”, marked out the scope of his lordship.
The earth was conceived of as a mountain resting on the abyss, and the
temple with its _ziggurrat_ was built to rise up like a mountain out of
the deep. The people could stand in the court of the temple at Nippur
and say of the mountain-like structure:
“O great mountain of Bel, O airy mountain,
Whose summit reaches heaven,
Whose foundation in the shining deep is firmly laid,
On the land like a mighty bull lying,
With gleaming horns like the rays of the rising sun,
Like the stars of heaven that are filled with lustre!”[19]
When Babylon became the chief city of all Babylonia, it was natural that
its god should be regarded as supreme. It was at this point that
political lordship seemed to pass from the old Bel to the new, namely to
Marduk. Ḥammurabi, one of the early kings at Babylon, speaks of Bel as
voluntarily transferring his power to Marduk. In the Assyrian legend of
the Creation this transfer is dramatically enacted. The task of
overcoming the monster Tiamat naturally belonged to Bel. But Marduk, the
youthful god of Eridu, the son of Ea, was urged to attempt the feat.
When he had slain the monster, there was joy among the gods. They vied
with each other in bestowing honor on the victor. Finally Bel steps
forward and confers an honor also. He bestowed on Marduk his own title
with these words: “Father Bel calls Marduk the lord of the world.”[20]
Marduk, therefore, is sometimes called the new Bel in distinction from
En-lil, the old Bel.
The idea of origins is apparently not very fully elaborated in
Babylonian literature. For instance, the Babylonians did not come so
near to the idea of creation _ex nihilo_ as the Hebrews. Their cosmogony
starts with chaos. The expanse of the heavens appears specked with
stars, some of which move with regularity. The moon travels across the
expanse according to a prescribed order. Then the Babylonian bilingual
account of the Creation gives a short statement of the creation of the
land and sea, of man and beast. Generally, however, the divinity that
planned and perfected order seems to be far in the background. The
bilingual account says:
“Marduk constructed an enclosure before the waters,
He made dust and heaped it up within the enclosure.
Mankind he created.
Animals of the field, creatures of the field he created.
The Tigris and the Euphrates he made and in place put (them)
By their names joyfully he called them”.[21]
Now Marduk, we know, took the place of Bel and Bel handed over his
prerogatives to Marduk. In transferring his rights he must have given
over also his power to create. If Marduk possessed the power to create
in the time of his popularity, Bel must have had the same power in the
days of his glory, before he was succeeded by Marduk. Therefore we are
led to the belief that the early Babylonians looked upon Bel as the
creator of animal and human life on earth.
The following hymn may be regarded as embodying a legendary view of Bel
as creator, while the idea of destruction is also incorporated in the
hymn:
“Of Bel, mighty hand,
Who lifts up glory and splendour, day of power.
Fearfulness he establishes.
Lord of DUN.PA.UD.DU.A, mighty hand.
Fearfulness he establishes.
Stormy one, father, mother, creator, mighty hand.
The catch-net he throws over the hostile land.
Lord, great warrior, mighty hand.
A firm house he raises up; the enemy he overthrows.
The shining one, lord of Nippur, mighty hand.
The lord, the life of the land, the _massu_ of heaven and earth.”[22]
2. _Sin_
Next after Bel, the moon-god is worthy of consideration, because of the
age of his cult, and because of the greatness of its influence in
Babylonia. The moon-god had two Sumerian names, two Assyrian names and
two great temples. The Sumerian name most often applied to the moon-god
is Šis-ki, the particular meaning of which in this case does not seem to
be very patent. If the two syllables _Šis_ and _ki_ are taken as nouns,
the one is the construct state and the other in the genitive relation,
the name means “brother of the land”, that is, “protector of the land”,
or “helper of the land”. The other Sumerian name is En-zu, lord of
wisdom, the intellectual attribute of wisdom being closely related to
the physical property of giving light. While therefore Šis-ki expresses
the material relation of the moon to the earth, En-zu seems to state the
intellectual relation of the moon-god to the affairs of the earth. The
first Assyrian name of the moon-god to be considered is Nannar. The
derivation of this name is still in doubt. It generally occurs in
bilingual literature as the Assyrian equivalent of the Sumerian Šis-ki
(see IV R. 9, 3-18). Jastrow thinks that the word Nannar is made by the
reduplication of _nar_, “light”, and the assimilation of the first _r_,
Nar + nar = Nannar (see RBA. p. 72). The other Assyrian name, connected
with the moon-god more often at Harran than at Ur, is Sin, the sign
being EŠ, used also for “thirty”, and is applied to the moon-god as the
deity of the month of thirty days. As the cult of the moon-god traveled
from Ur to Harran, so the name of Sin traveled even into the peninsula
of Arabia and probably became a local name there in the wilderness. The
Assyrian kings of the second empire seemed to prefer to call the
moon-god by the name Sin, but the Semitic Babylonians called him Nannar.
Nannar had a temple at Ur, called E-gišširgal, and one at Harran, known
as E-ḥulḥul. Ur was the oldest of the two temple cities. Its history may
possibly reach back to 4000 B. C. Ur held a position in southern
Babylonia similar to that held by Nippur in northern Babylonia, but was
not so old as Nippur. Ur was the religious centre in the south with
Nannar as the state god, as Nippur was the religious centre in the north
with Bel as the state god. When the states of the south and the north
were united under Ḥammurabi, Babylon, becoming the religious capital of
the south and the north combined, the state lustre of the god of Babylon
naturally came to dim the glory of the god of Ur as well as that of
Nippur. Harran, situated on the Euphrates in the northern part of
Assyria, never figured in state power, and was prominent only because of
the importance of the events that centered there, on the road between
the east and the west.
Nabonidus, the last Semitic Babylonian king (555-538 B. C.) was an
enthusiastic devotee of the moon-god. He tells us what Ašurbanipal did
to the temple of the moon-god at Mugheir. In speaking of that temple, he
calls it the house of Sin which Ašurbanipal, king of Assyria, son of
Esarhaddon, king of Assyria had built. Nabonidus himself rebuilt both
the temples of the moon-god, the temple of E-gišširgal at Ur and the
temple of E-ḥulḥul at Harran, and he gives us a description of the
rebuilding of both. We also have two prayers of Nabonidus addressed to
the moon-god, one addressed to him at E-gišširgal, the other addressed
to him at E-ḥulḥul (see I R. 68, Col. I, 6 ff. and V R. 64, Col. I, 8
ff.).
The temple ruins of E-gišširgal have been well uncovered. The temple is
of rectangular form, the four corners turned towards the four cardinal
points of the compass. The platform of the base is at the level of the
roofs of the houses, made of solid masonry of bricks and reached by
steps at the end. On the platform are two stagings, also of solid
masonry reached by steps at one end. On the second staging is a shrine
of the moon-god. In sculpture he appears as an old man with long beard
and dressed in royal robes. He wears a hat and in the scene there is
always a thin crescent (see Clercq, Vol. I, Plates X-XV). Loftus and
Taylor both give drawings of the temple of E-gišširgal (see TR. p. 127
and JRAS. XV, p. 260.) The ruins of the temple of the moon-god at Harran
have not yet been uncovered to the extent that the plan of the temple
can be laid before us.
Theologically, Nannar stood at the head of the second triad of gods. The
hierarchy of the universe consisted of the god Anu, the god Bel and the
god Ea. The hierarchy of heaven consisted of the god Nannar, the god
Šamaš and the god Ištar; that is, the moon-god, the sun-god and the
star-god. The reason for placing Nannar above Šamaš was that Nannar was
the god of the ruling city, while Šamaš was the city god of the
dependent state, though the sun which Šamaš represents is stronger than
the moon which Nannar represents, and we should expect Šamaš, therefore,
to receive the first place. The god of the city of Larsa was Šamaš. The
god of the city of Ur was Nannar. When Larsa became subject to Ur, the
god of Larsa; viz., Šamaš, became the child of the god of Ur; that is,
of Nannar. The relation of the night to the calendar also shows that the
rank of Nannar was superior to that of Šamaš. The day began at evening;
not with the morning. The sun too was the son of the night; that is, it
issued forth from the night, in the morning. Kings, thinking of this
fact, that the sun was born of the night, often addressed Šamaš as the
offspring of the god Sin. The rising of the moon in the night to send
forth its light into the darkness also impressed the Babylonian with the
power of the moon. The waxing and waning of the moon left the same
impression on the Babylonian mind. The regularity of the phases of the
moon and its effect upon the tides as well showed the moon to be an
agent in marking time. Finally, the place of the moon among the stars
also gave him the appearance of having royal sway.
Nannar’s national influence was much like that of Bel. Geographically,
he represented southern Babylonia, while Bel was the chief deity of
northern Babylonia. When Marduk became the patron god of Babylon, Bel
and Nannar still held their positions as patron gods, but in
subordination to Marduk. Besides, they did not lose their influence as
supreme deities, each in his peculiar sphere, Bel as the god of the
earth and Nannar as the god of the moon. Bel was ruler of the earth
while Nannar was, by his light, a producer in the earth. Bel was the
providential director of life on earth, Nannar was the originator of
life on earth, as he formed the child in the womb. Both were superhuman
in power and wisdom. Thus Ḥammurabi: “My words are mighty. If a man pay
no attention to my words, may Bel, the lord who determines destinies,
whose command cannot be altered, who has enlarged my dominion, drive him
out from his dwelling. May Sin, the lord of heaven, my divine creator,
whose scimetar shines among the gods, take away from him the crown and
throne of sovereignty.”[23]
No god in the mind of the Babylonian had reached the position of
combining in himself all the qualities of divinity. So it did not seem
inconsistent to the Babylonian to worship two gods like Bel and Nannar,
or more gods. There was a tolerance of all gods; each was considered as
acting in his own circle, and these circles did not necessarily exclude
the one the other. One god might be more important than another,
according to the importance of the circle in which his virtue was
effective, or according to the importance of the political power the
circle of whose sway was under the special tutelage of some particular
god. Babylonian worship cannot be said to be polytheistic in the grosser
form, nor had it reached the higher ideal that lies in monotheism. It
may properly be considered a henotheistic worship in which there is a
pantheon of gods whose local and universal claims did not cause the gods
or their devotees to war the one on the other.
There is a truly great bilingual hymn addressed to Nannar. According to
the colophon it was transcribed by the chief penman of Ašurbanipal from
an old copy. My impression is that it is an enlargement of the hymn to
Nannar of which this Thesis gives a transliteration, translation and
commentary. For this reason I herewith append the following translation:
“O lord, highest of the gods, alone in heaven and earth exalted!
O father Nannar, lord of Anšar, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord Anu the great, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord Sin, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord of Ur, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord of E-gišširgal, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, lord of the shining crown, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, of most perfect royalty, highest of the gods!
O father Nannar, in royal robes marching, highest of the gods!
O strong young bullock, with great horns, of perfect physical
strength, with hazel-colored pointed beard of luxurious
growth and perfect fulness!
O fruit, whose stalk growing of itself reacheth a tall form, beautiful
to look upon, whose perfection never satiateth!
O mother, the producer of life, thou who settest up for the creatures
of life a lofty dwelling!
O merciful and gracious father, thou who holdest in hand the life of
all the land!
O lord, thy divinity, like the distant heavens and the broad sea,
inspireth reverence!
O creator of the lands, founding the temple and giving it a name!
O namer of royalty, determiner of the future for distant days!
O mighty prince, whose distant thought no god can declare!
O thou whose knee bendeth not, opener of the road for the gods thy
brothers!
O thou who goest forth from the foundation of heaven to the height of
heaven, opening the door of heaven, creating light for all
men!
O father, begetter of all, who lookest upon the creatures of life, who
thinkest of them!
O lord, who fixest the destiny of heaven and earth, whose command no
one changeth!
O thou who holdest the fire and the water, who turnest the life of
creation, what god reacheth thy fulness!
Who in heaven is high? Thou alone art high.
Who on earth is high? Thou alone art high.
As for thee, when thy word is spoken in heaven, the Igigi bow down the
face.
As for thee, when thy word is spoken on earth, the Anunaki kiss the
ground.
As for thee, when thy word like the wind resoundeth on high, food and
drink abound.
As for thee, when thy word is established in the land, it causeth
vegetation to grow.
As for thee, thy word maketh fat the herd and flock and increaseth the
creatures of life.
As for thee, thy word secureth truth and righteousness and causeth men
to speak righteousness.
As for thee, thy word extendeth to heaven, it covereth the earth, no
one can comprehend it.
As for thee, thy word, who can understand it, who can approach it!
O lord, in heaven supreme, on earth the leader, among the gods thy
brothers without a rival.
O king of kings, the lofty one, whose command no one approacheth,
whose divinity no god can liken.
Where thy eye looketh thou showest favor, where thy hand toucheth thou
securest salvation.
O lord, the shining one, who directeth truth and righteousness in
heaven and earth and causeth them to go forth.
Look graciously on thy temple, look graciously on thy city.
Look graciously on Ur, look graciously on E-gišširgal,
Thy beloved consort, the gracious mother, calleth to thee: O lord give
rest!
The hero Šamaš calleth to thee: O lord give rest!
The Igigi call to thee: O lord give rest!
The Anunaki call to thee: O lord give rest!
..... calleth to thee: O lord give rest!
Ningal calleth to thee: O lord give rest!
May the bar of Ur, the enclosure of E-gišširgal and the building of
Ezida be established!
The gods of heaven and earth call to thee: O lord give rest!
The lifting up of the hand. 48 lines on the tablet to Nannar.
Mighty one. Lord of strength.
Like its original, copied and revised.
Tablet of Ištar-šuma-ereš, the chief scribe.
Of Ašurbanipal, king of legions, king of Assyria,
Son of Nabu-zer-lištešir, chief penman.”
IV R. 9.
This Ašurbanipal hymn may be considered as remarkable for its advanced
ideas. In the first part of the hymn there is introduced the
mythological idea of the bullock’s head in the moon with horns and the
face with flowing hazel-colored beard, so that strength and brilliancy
are pointed out. But the hymn advances into literal speech by which the
most varied and greatest of divine attributes are attached to the god
Nannar. He is named as sovereign god, a self-created god, a merciful
god, the begetter of all life, the maintainer of the life of the world,
the bestower of gifts to men, the establisher of dwellings; he fixes
destinies, pronounces judgment, gives water to man and supplies him with
vegetable food. He holds a unique and exalted position in heaven and on
earth above all other beings. To him the angels of heaven and spirits of
earth bow, and at his command the forces of nature perform their
marvellous functions.
3. _Adad_
The storm-god is known by the Sumerian ideogram _Im_. The sign IMMU in
the El-Amarna tablets (1500 B. C.) has the reading Adad, a name
connected with the Syrian Hadad. Oppert thinks Adad is the god’s oldest
name. It seems evidently a foreign equivalent for _Im_. The Assyrian
name Ramman is a provisional name meaning “thunderer”, and probably only
an epithet. The sign IMMU has also the value _Mer_. This is, no doubt,
the original and real name of the god, which appears as well in the form
Immer. The primary idea in the name is that of wind, then, that of rain
and finally of thunder and lightning. The god is not an object like
Nannar, but a force; then the force is personified and he is spoken of
as a person. Ḥammurabi puts him in the second triad of gods. He is the
third person of that triad, Sin being the first person and Šamaš the
second. Generally Ištar has the third place in the second triad. In that
case Ramman falls outside of that triad and takes position among all the
gods as seventh in importance. The order is as follows: Anu, Bel, Ea,
Sin, Šamaš, Ištar, Adad (Ramman). As a Babylonian god we find Ramman’s
name appears in Ḥammurabi’s time as a common name in literature. He is
invoked in Ḥammurabi’s Code, like other gods, of course in his sphere as
a storm-god. Thus: “If a man will pay no attention to my words, may
Adad, the lord of abundance, the regent of heaven and earth, my helper,
deprive him of the rain from heaven and the water-floods from the
springs! May he bring his land to destruction through want and hunger!
May he break loose furiously over his city and turn his land into a heap
left by a whirlwind!”[24] With the kings of the Cassite dynasty Ramman
seems to be popular. His name appears by the side of that of Šamaš and
he is called the divine lord of justice. In the Babylonian dynasty of
kings, Nebuchadnezzar I. addresses Ramman as the great lord of heaven,
the lord of the subterranean waters and rain, whose curse is invoked
against the one who sets aside the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar or defaces
his monument.
Ramman is thought to be more truly an Assyrian than a Babylonian god. He
is almost as dear to the Assyrian as the god Ašur. Historical data,
however, do not furnish very early mention of his name in Assyria. We
find that he had a seat of worship in Damascus, and his cult had vogue
in the plain of Jezreel, his name appearing in Hebrew, written by
mistake, after the text was Masoretically vocalized, “Rimmon” which is
exactly the same in form as the Hebrew word for pomegranate. In Assyria
we can trace his history back to some extent by means of inscriptions in
which his name appears as an element in the compound names of kings. For
example, we find his name in the name of the ancient Assyrian king
Šamaš-Ramman, and from an inscription of Tiglath-pileser I. we learn
also that Šamaš-Ramman built a temple to the god Ramman. So we have
historical evidence that the cult of Ramman is older in Assyria than
this king, who was reigning in 1820 B. C. How much older it may be we do
not know. Jastrow thinks that the cult is indigenous to Assyrian soil.
Between the time of Šamaš-Ramman and the time of Tiglath-pileser I. the
service of Ramman must have declined somewhat, for the temple of Ramman
in the city of Aššur seems not to have been repaired from the days of
Šamaš-Ramman till Tiglath-pileser himself rebuilt it. Tiglath-pileser
says that from the time of the founding it was in decay six hundred and
forty years. Then king Ašurdan tore it down entirely. Sixty years after
the entire destruction, Tiglath-pileser builds the temple anew. He says
that in the beginning of his government the great gods Anu and Adad
demanded for him the restoration of their sacred dwelling. “I made
bricks and cleared its ground until I reached the artificial flat
terrace upon which the old temple had been built. I laid its foundation
upon the solid rock and the whole place incased with bricks like a
fire-place, overlaid on it a layer of fifty bricks in depth and built
upon this the foundations of the temple of Anu and Adad of large square
stones. I built it up from foundation to roof, larger and grander than
before, and erected also two great temple towers ... fitting ornaments
of their great divinities.”[25] From Tiglath-pileser on, temples of
Ramman do not seem to be often mentioned, but the god himself is
frequently spoken of in inscriptions of the kings. Sargon II. has one of
the eastern gates of his temple named “Ramman the producer of
abundance”. Ašurbanipal enumerates thirteen gods whom he honors as the
great gods, and places Ramman fifth in the list.
Ramman’s most esteemed service was that of bestowing blessing. The rains
in the right proportion were a boon to the land, filling the canals and
watering the soil. Ḥammurabi calls Ramman the lord of abundance and his
helper. Tiglath-pileser I. prays for the blessings of prosperity, as he
prays to Adad: “May Anu and Adad turn to me truly and accept graciously
the lifting up of my hand, hearken unto my devout prayers, grant me and
my reign abundance of rain, years of prosperity and fruitfulness in
plenty.”[26] Ašurbanipal describes the blessings he receives by the
favor of this god: “Ramman let loose his showers and Ea has opened his
springs, the grain has grown to a height of five yards and the ears have
been five sixths of a yard long, the produce of the land has been
abundant and the fruit trees have borne fruit richly.”[27] The mention
of Anu and Ea with Ramman is because of their power to produce water, Ea
representing the depths of water and Anu the heaven with its clouds of
rain.
The most conspicuous work of Ramman was that of destruction. It is in
this function of judgment that he is associated with Šamaš. The
connection lies in the fact that the lightning of Ramman is like the
day-light of Šamaš; so, as the god of lightning, Ramman has the title
_birḳu_. Lightning and flooding rain were, because of their destructive
character, fearful forces, and the kings in calling for a curse on
hostile man or land turn to Ramman in imprecation, as, for example,
Raman-Nirari I. does concerning the man who may be tempted to blot out
the record of Ramman-Nirari’s name: “May Ramman with terrible rainstorm
overwhelm him, may flood, destruction, wind, rebellion, revolution,
tempest, want and famine, drought and hunger be continually in his land.
May he come down on his land like a flood. May he turn it into mounds
and ruins. May Ramman strike his land with a destructive bolt.”[28]
Some Babylonian composer has set forth the terrifying side of Ramman’s
character in a bilingual hymn as follows:
“The lord in his anger himself makes heaven quake.
Adad in his wrath lifts up the earth.
The mighty mountain he himself smites down.
At his anger, at his wrath,
At his roaring, at his thundering,
The gods of heaven ascend to heaven,
The gods of earth enter earth,
Šamaš into the foundation of heaven enters,
Sin in the height of heaven is magnified.”[29]
4. _Tammuz_
There is a fascination about the life of Tammuz not experienced in the
contemplation of the other gods of Babylonia. He seems to be presented
to us just as though he were a man.
Our first paragraph may describe him as a resident of one of the ancient
cities of southern Babylonia. The city of his residence was Eridu on the
banks of the Euphrates. His official title is that of sun-god and his
occupation is to care for the growth of plants. The name of his father
was Ea, the lord of the city of Eridu, whose duties consisted in
governing the waters of the river on whose shore the city rested. Tammuz
had a mother, whose name was Davkina, the mistress of the vine. Tammuz
also had a sister Belili whose calling was, like that of Tammuz her
brother, the care of plant growth. Tammuz also had a bride, the famous
and treacherous Ištar, the goddess of love, represented by the evening
star; she was mistress of the neighbouring city of Erech, a little to
the north-west, and on the other side of the Euphrates. The life of
Tammuz at Eridu was romantic and his days ended in tragedy. There is a
little poem, giving a picture of his home. There was a garden, a holy
place, abundantly shaded with profuse leafage of trees whose roots went
down deep into the waters over which Ea presided. His couch was hung
under the rich foliage of the vine which his mother tended. There Tammuz
dwelt and there was his shrine. His dwelling of foliage in his youthful
days was symbolic of the domain in which the virtue of his power was to
be exercised. His real home was in heaven, for from heaven the virtue of
plant-growth proceeds with the heat of the sun. But his connection with
heaven had been forgotten, except in reminiscence found in legend. In
the legend of Adapa, for instance, we find a hint of it. Tammuz and his
companion Gišzida are seen mounting up to heaven where they receive
stations as door-keepers in the gate of Anu’s house; in heaven they
properly belong.
The descent of Tammuz to the lower world implies that he died, but the
accounts have not made a direct statement of how he died, or what was
the cause of his death. Perhaps we may conceive of the event of his
death as having taken place at Eridu before the service of lamentation
had developed into a cult honored at the court of Sargon of Akkad, where
a temple was built for Tammuz after northern Babylonia had gained the
ascendency over southern Babylonia. The literal cause of his death was
that he was not capable of making plant-growth a continuous process. The
power of the heat of the sun as the summer advanced was superior to the
virtue which Tammuz possessed over plant-life. The fierce heat of the
summer caused vegetation to take a paler hue; then the germs of decay
entered; slowly and surely the face of the land was assuming the same
state that existed before the power of Tammuz appeared to quicken the
blade of grass and the fruit-bud of the early spring. So Tammuz was
banished to the lower world. Romantically his entrance to the abode of
the dead was due to the hand which Ištar had in the events of his life.
She had many lovers, and she betrayed them all. Her betrayal in the case
of Tammuz consisted in not aiding him in her sphere as great mother in
the production of life on earth. Had she supplemented his effort and
made the earth continue to bear and bring forth, counteracting the
effect of the deadly heat of the summer solstice and the destructive
wind of the south, the gardens and the fruit orchards over whose
productiveness Tammuz presided would have enjoyed perennial fruitage,
and Gilgameš would never have had to take up the sad accusation against
Ištar:
“Tammuz, the spouse of thy youth,
Thou compellest to weep year after year.”[30]
Also there had never gone up the song of lamentation:
“He went down to meet the nether world,
He has sated himself. Šamaš caused him to perish
To the land of the dead.
With mourning was he filled on the day
When he fell into great sorrow.”[31] |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기